Libretarianism?

Remove all ads!

I agree, the meaning has been lost. There are very few true liberals in America. The notion that the Democrats are "liberal" is a load of baloney, which has been largely spouted by Republicans who wish to scare the hell out of moderates, and their own political base with such nonsense. By the same token, true conservatives are becoming scarce as well. The big spending, big war, big nation building, pork barrel toting, George II is said to be conservative. Yet, how so? Where is the evidence that his policies are representative of traditional conservatives? Simply defined, America has become loaded with political opportunists, who are neither liberal nor conservative, but power mongers. They use ideology as a means for grasping and retaining power - not as a matter of principle.

Mithrantir made an intersting point on one of the other threads, which was that those in power in the American political system, continue to hold power because it is already theirs, and they have the know-how to retain it. But true liberalism is very weak in America; it is only a very vocal, but very small minority.

 

libertarianism is an idealogy that if ever becomes put into practise, will fare poorly for the common man. Since federal government will have no influence upon economic policies, they cannot safegard a workers right, nor hold a company accountable for it's mispractise. i still prefer a mix of civil liberalism and government services like education and healthcare as well as a government who has the power to hold corporations accountable

 

Words have different meanings in different contexts. This is nothing new. It seems unnecesarily arrogant to me to tell people in another nation that they should change the language that they've developed over the course of a century or two to suit our personal preferences. Just understand that different people mean different things even if using the same word. Your mileage may vary.

With respect to libertarianism; I was fortunate enough to speak with Charlie Cook about a week ago and he pointed out that there are more libertarians (with the small l not the big L) in this nation than folks really recognize. They just have tended to vote Republican for the last decade +. They tend to be white folks in California, NY, and other "progressive" areas. They tend to be male, middle and upper class, and white. They are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Republican party and the immigration debate may be a flash point which splits a number of them from the party.

As an aside - Charlie Cook also said:

re the 2006 elections - Iraq is about 80% of the problem for Republicans according to his polling and the rest is Abramaoff, deficit, etc.

this is the best political climate for Democrats since Nixon but they aren't taking full advantage of it. They are running too many third tier candidates for open and vulnearable seats because they have been turned down by better candidates. From a macro-view things look terrible for Republicans but from a micro view things look a little better. There is a hurricane right now that is going to hit the Republicans but it is too early to tell what class it will be. The Democrats need to basically hit for the cycle on winnable races (open seats and vulnerable incumbents as in Montana and Pennsylvania) to take the Senate and he doesn't think they'll do it but if the hurricane is a class 5 then they may well (and also take the House; the House is apparently more likely to go Democratic at this point in time.) He basically came out and admitted that he is excited because it is an interesting election but it is a terribly difficult election to predict at this point (which frustrates him a bit since that is his job.)

re the 2008 election. There is a fight in both parties. 6 months ago the political insiders were picking Allen as the Republican nominee. As Bush's numbers fall though Allen has become far less likely to get the nomination since Allen is stylistically like Bush (before people go nuts here, he means that he has the same frat boy, cowboy boots, 'aw shucks' charm that has appealed to many Republicans but as Bush's numbers go down it is less likely they'll go for someone like Bush in this way; BUT he said Allen is one of the smartest people he has met and while both Bush and Allen went to Harvard business scholl Cook said that clearly one of them went to class.) Right now McCain gets the nod from insiders as the most likely nominee but many Republicans aren't happy about it. Additionally, he'd be the oldest President we ever had - he had an extremely difficult life with torture and three bouts with skin cancer so it could be he won't run though all signs indicate he will. The worse Bush's numbers are the more likely McCain would be to get the nomination as he is the strongest general election candidate they have at this point in the Republican leadership's mind.

The Democrats are running Clinton vs. everyone else. Some will argue she can't win. Cook thinks she can win but that other candidates will have an easier time of it. He pointed out that Kerry was a terrible candidate that didn't bring anything to the table (i.e. people who voted for Kerry were going to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate was and Kerry didn't rally and persuade additional voters in his opinion.) Despite Kerry's ineptitude he still almost won the election so, with the numbers being as they are, the Democrats don't need a juggernaut to win this election. If it isn't Clinton it will be because the party decides she won't win the general election and they'll pick whoever gives them the best shot in their minds at the time - probably someone from the south or mid-west.

In the past decades any time there has been an 8 year cycle of the presidency the party out of power for those 8 years has won the election except on one occasion. The only time there has been a 12 year stretch was Reagan to Bush. But, Reagan's approval rating was over 50. For comparison, Bush's is in the 30's (trending up some.) Bush's approval ratings are the worst ever for a second term President with the exception of Nixon. History is on the Democrats side and they just need to avoid nominating a political dolt.

Most of what Cook said was similar to what Daschle said to a group I was with but Daschle was unsurprisingly a bit more optimistic (saying they'd win certain races that Cook thinks are going to be close - like Ohio for example.)

Anyways, passing on 2 cents from others.

[ June 14, 2006, 22:34: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

What do people hide behind concsiously improper terminology, I wonder. It's a chosen and made up name for cheap marketing reasons. Nothing else.

 

The development of idiosyncratic expressions and the slow accumulation of "baggage" which slowly but surely alters the meanings of the words which make up our language is rarely, if ever, so simple. Nevertheless the reason that meanings change as fluidly as they do can be expressed fairly simply.....they always have. Language lives and breathes.....and changes. 800 year old English isn't even recognizable by modern speakers of the language. We have a hard enough time with Shakespeare.....and he was only 400 years ago.

It isn't "corporatization" or marketing that changes the meanings of words. Time and frequent use does that on its own. The geographical barrier between our nations has caused a rift in the evolutionary path of our language. Fortunatly, due to the fact that we (the US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, etc) are largely literate societies, this rift in our language is likely to be kept to a minimum.....but it will never go away entirely, and it is inevitable that the rift will only continue to get bigger. Short of completely removing or otherwise nullifying the geographical and culture barriers between us, there is no stopping such a shift.